Crazy Bouncy castle case

[TheDevilWearsPrimark]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7389775.stm

or if you prefer an actual link...

Well, one thing's for sure. The bouncy castle we were going to hire for dd2's birthday is now not being hired after all.

I heard about this. I have mixed feelings about the result and I am sure there are lots of people cancelling their bouncy castle hire orders.

so , you go to someones party and your child is injured and you sue the other childs parents? and they are found liable ? it is mad! so if my child goes to play elsewhere, and has an accidental injury, i can sue the other parents? it will open the floodgates now.

i actually think it is really shocking

it's utterly ridiculous. An accident can happen any time. Should we now feel we can't do anything for fear of being sued?

I'm very surprised they won the case given what I've read about it, but then I suppose we haven't heard all the evidence.

I feel sorry for the injured boy and his parents, of course I do, but it seems that the parents were there, so surely it is their job to supervise their child?

Even if they weren't there, accidents do happen. And yes, I know that if it were one of mine that were hurt, I may have a different view, but surely that is why we don't allow vigilante justice?

I agree that it doesn't bode well but think about it. If your child was brain damaged and needed 24 hour care after an accident like this, and it was coverable by the host's insurance, then tell me what other possible option do you have other than to get the insurance to pay up?

He was kicked in the head by a much bigger 15 year old. It is dangerous and irresponsible to let large teenagers on bouncy castles with smaller children.

It is very, very sad that it came to a court case, but the boy's brain damage is so bad, he will need constant care for the rest of his life.

Bouncy castles are fun for small, light children, carefully supervised, but, as the mother of 2 large teenaged boys, I would never hire one for teenagers.

I was really confused by this case. According to earlier reports, the boy who was injured wasn't actually at the party, he was just in the area with his father. He then wanted to go on the bouncy castle and from what I read, the case revolved around whether the bouncy castle people said he could join in or not. I wonder why his father wasn't deemed to have been responsible for him.

So they get the insurance to pay up and parents all around the country stop inviting children to their homes and cancel their kids' parties for fear of being sued.

If you let your child onto a bouncy castle and don't supervise them yourself it's outrageous to sue your hosts for injury to that child.

I hope to god this is overturned on appeal.

The bouncy castle wasn't at their home, it was on public playing fields. Personally, I wouldn't hire something and then place it on public land as it leaves you open to all sorts of liabilities.

In fact, I'm quite surprised that their insurers are willing to cover the damages, assuming it is their home insurance they are using.

You go to someone's party and your child is injured and you brain-damaged and it will cost a fortune in 24-hour care over his lifetime, including after you and your partner are dead and unable to look after his best interests.

The other child's parents have insurance that covers them against this type of lawsuit.

I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to sue. In fact, if I were the parent who had hired the castle, and I did have insurance, I would hope the other family did sue.

This is why we (arguably) need a system of no-fault compensation. But I was writing essays about that over fifteen years ago...

Riven - I don't know your story, but very for you. Didn't mean to upset anyone else in a similar tragic situation.

Apparently the hire contract stated constant supervision by a responsible person was required. Yet there was only one of the host parents around and she was strapping someone else into some sort of bunjee jumping equipment. So I can see how they might be held liable.

If you are having a party for triplets, and you are ordering lots of different activity equipment, then you should really be making sure it is properly supervised.

I can't see how supervising would have made any difference. The other boy was apparently doing a somersault and hit him on the head accidentally.

Surely the judge knows you should never let someone win a case because there is an "appeal to pity". It has to be won on the facts, and I just don't get it.

I worry about ever allowing other people's children around my house ever again!!!!!!!

If the other boy had been sedately bouncing in a corner and then suddenly did a somersault out of the blue then supervising wouldn't have made any difference. But whenever I've been somewhere with a properly supervised bouncy castle stopping the bigger kids dicking around and doing stuff that could accidentally hurt the smaller kids is part of what the supervisors do.

Actually, if this is causing lots of people to rethink hiring bouncy castles then I think it's a good thing. They ought to be properly supervised (and always have been when I've seen them at parties etc.), and if anyone was viewing them as a risk-free thing that can be inflated and then ignored then I think it's a positive thing for them to rethink.

Accident? Are you all mad?

No one in their right mind would let a 15 year old on a bouncy castle with a group of younger kids. As for allowing him to do somersaults ... it's unbelievable.

You hire these things, you make sure you act responsibly to ensure that the kids using them are safe.

If it was my kid that had been injured under those circumstances, I'd want more than monetary compensation. I'd want the other parents prosectuted for gross negligence and locked up.

They might not have meant it to happen but that's no excuse.

Well if your younger child is on a bouncy castle with a 15 year old surely it's your responsibility to get them off, no?

PortAndLemon - I'm interested in your idea of no-fault compensation. How would that work?

Aren't you at all worried about the chilling effect this decision will have on children's parties?

I guess as long as there are parents like bobbysmum about, we need to be very careful who we extend our hospitality to.

Children on bouncy castles need to be carefully supervised. No way should a large 15 year old boy should be allowed on one with younger children. I'm not surprised there was an accident - yes accidents can happen - but sometimes, common sense can stop accidents from happening.

Well it's not often I agree with bobbysmum but in this case I think I do.

If you are having a party, you need to supervise it properly. If you've let a 15 year old get on a bouncy castle with younger kids, you're not doing that.

I agree that it's a good thing if it makes people re-think their attitudes to children's parties. I hate English kids parties, where a bunch of kids are dumped on a harrassed and stressed out host/ess to deal with. Maybe if people refused to accept that responsibility/ hell and more parents stayed and helped/ socialised and parties became more inter-generational, life would be slightly more civilised.